User talk:FoxCE/Archive 1

A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, FoxCE. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! – Luna Santin  (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Naomie Harris, Miss Moneypenny and The Daily Fail
I have reverted your edits stating that The Daily Mail is reporting Naomie Harris is Moneypenny. The reason for this is that the article you provide as a source does not actually contain any evidence that Harris will be Moneypenny. They say that she is, and that is the problem with it - they are the ones saying it. They do not have anything to support that claim, and we have no way of verifying it. In order for a source to be acceptable as a source, the article would have to contain a quote from somebody who is involved in production of the film and in a position to confirm that Harris is Moneypenny. And furthermore, that person must be named (a favourite tactic of the tabloids is to quote an anonymous source). So, either Harris herself, Mendes, Wilson, Broccoli or Craig. While this article does indeed quote Naomie Harris, not once does she say anything about the role that she is playing, except to give details of her training regimen.

In addition to this, The Daily Mail has this own agenda. They have been promoting Harris as Moneypenny since news first broke that she had been meeting with the producers. It is in their interests to keep pushing this line of thought, because if Harris is Moneypenny, then that gives them more credibility. And they have a documented history of spreading rumours to increase their readership circulation - during filming of Quantum of Solace, they reported that an organised union protest in Panama City was a gang war in Colon that had been started by production of the film. Tabloids deal in sensationalisation, because they know that gets them more readers.

As for the other reference attributed to The Daily Mail, the difference is that that reference is substantiated by other publications (which are not tabloids) reporting the same thing. The actual reference from The Daily Mail could be removed without affecting the statement it is supporting because of the other sources. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Dear FoxCE, thanks for compromising with me as you did here. Have a nice night! With regards, AnupamTalk 08:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Christmas
Hi FoxCE, thanks for dragging me in again :-)

I didn't want to add to the already far too lengthy discussion on the Christmas talk page. It often looks like you end up talking to a stone wall anyway.

And I do not have a lot to add to what you have already said (except my support). I think you have explained yourself very well; so well in fact that I personally find it very hard to "assume good faith" with anybody who doesn't appear to get it.

To draw a less controversial parallel, the discussion can be compared with defining a "mountain" as (among other things) a thing with "snow on top", or not. The "snow on top" definition is clearly wrong and biased so you shouldn't mention snow in any primary definition of a mountain. Although you could, and probably should, mention it as an important characteristic later on. Exactly like you did with your definition of Christmas and the birth of Jesus.

Then trying to put myself in "their" shoes I think that the pseudo-argument that "Christmas does indeed commemorate the birth of Jesus [while people may not]", and similar ones, go to the heart of the matter. They hint at a meaning of "Christmas" that is untouchable, predefined and set in stone, rather than something that evolves over time. For "them" the definition that they already have in their mind is the only one that is correct. And to be honest, within their (limited) world view you could even argue that they are. I.e. within their POV they are correct.

Compare again it with somebody who needs to define a "mountain" but has never left Switzerland. Their definition could include the "snow on top" bit and they would have no reason to leave it out. Any suggestion that a mountain does not need to have snow on top would lead to pseudo-arguments like that it is not a "real mountain" if there is no snow on top. This is exactly the same situation as you are facing with "Christmas".

So the real problem, in my opinion, is a limited and unbalanced world view that does not allow for a pre-existing definition to be challenged in the light of new facts. The only way out is if and when people are ready to accept that the world is bigger than just theirs. There is no doubt in my mind that Wikipedia primarily needs to reflect that bigger world. Of course this doesn't mean that Wikipedia should ignore more localised, secondary definitions, but they should never take precedence over more general definitions that are available.

But good luck arguing any of this with somebody who starts his/her "argument" with "the issue here for me is not factual accuracy, but ...". Feel free to use any of my input if you think it helps and I wish you all the best with your "quest". Perhaps I will join in again when I have more time, closer to Christmas... AlexFekken (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

December 2011
Dear FoxCE, I did not change era notations "arbitrarily" or break any rules regarding the WP:ERA policy, if you actually checked, I a) corrected a link error ("common era" to "common_era") so that the link actually directed correctly, and then added the same link to another date reference that already used "BCE". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristian EB (talk • contribs) 13:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Xmas down under
You might be interested in this search. This hit is especially interesting. If it were only in Europe and South America and Australia, it would still be "around the world". "On every continent" is actually more specific and more encompassing than "around the world". However, it is not a matter of great concern to me. --JimWae (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Page move
Hi there, sorry if my first interaction with you is a bit blunt, but why was this move not discussed and agreed on advance? I don't see any recent discussion on the talk page and certainly no agreement (though I concede it has been discussed - with no resolution - in the recent past. I'm going to revert your move, on the basis that such a large change really needs to be discussed first. Call it invoking WP:BRD if you like. I'd prefer to spend the time discussing improvements to the article itself, but if there's a need to discuss it's title then let's do so before a move is agreed (or the status quo confirmed.) Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  21:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, yes, sorry about that... I moved it thinking it was a vandal move, since the talk page title didn't match up — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 11:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, that makes sense. There has been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing over that page (which was why my comment above sounded snippy - sorry about that!) I've moved the talk page to align with the article now, hopefully we can get some stability!! Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  12:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited List of Google Doodles (1998–2009), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alien (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

More information needed about File:Swedish.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Swedish.jpg. However, it needs some more information before it is okay to use on Wikipedia.

Please click here and do the following:


 * 1) Add a description of where the image is from and who the author is. Please be specific, and include a link if possible.
 * 2) Find the appropriate license from the list of free, non-free media, or public domain options. Copy the license template and paste it in the file's page, and save.

If you follow these steps, your image can help enhance Wikipedia. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the media copyright questions page.

Thank you for your contribution! --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Oskar Eli 2008.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Oskar Eli 2008.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 03:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Columbo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Mitchell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Curve (Our Lady Peace album)
FoxCE, I'm curious why you would think the album article, you created, had nothing to do with Canada? I reverted the edit removing WikiProject Canadian music. BTW, I just got your foxy id joke! (lol). Argolin (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I haven't seen that tag on other OLP music articles, and since one of the band members is American I don't see how it should be tagged under Canada any more than under USA. Nonetheless, I do see how it could be considered relevant and I have no problem leaving it as is — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 12:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Griffin and Phoenix (1976 film), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Flashback and Stephen Rogers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lede define the narrative as a "myth, in the academic sense"?
An RfC has been created at Genesis creation narrative. Since you have been involved in this discussion, I'm informing you about it here.  This is not an attempt to canvass, because people on both sides of the dispute are being notified.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Genesis creation myth
Since there are no arguments supported by policy for not calling it a creation myth, I was in the process of moving the article to the correct title, however there's a redirect in the way with previous deletion requests, so I couldn't move over redirect. Once the old redirect is removed, I will restore my change to the lead and move the article.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 03:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And now someone declined the deletion of the existing redirect because the lead sentence hasn't been changed. Thanks for triggering some classic circular reasoning.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The First Nowell
The article does not mention that it is sometimes known as "Noel", nor have I ever come across anything to that effect. Can you provide any corroboration? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Free Dictionary lists "a Christmas carol" as the second definition. Also, you may know of the the popular riddle "abcdefghijkmnopqrstuvwxyz", which is a recitation of the alphabet with the letter "L" missing. The question asked is: "Which Christmas song is this?", and the answer is simply "No L" or "Noel". This is obviously not a reliable source, but it indicates that the song is widely known by the singular term "Noel", which I think satisfied the WP:PTM conditions. If you still wish to contest this, feel free to remove it. But I do think that many searching "Noel" would be looking for the song. —  FoxCE   (talk • contribs) 21:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you quite grasp what belongs on a dab page. Something where you have to go through several stages to explain a connection doesn't. Pretty much all of the time, the article itself should explicitly state that it is known by another name. If you were to refer to "the carol Noel", I'd have to scratch my head for a while to figure out what you meant. As a compromise, I've no strong objection to moving it to a see also section. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For years prior to the merge there was a sentence at the end of the introductory paragraph of Noel (record of which has now been lost due to admin deletion/move of the page) that read "The word is well known from the Christmas song The First Nowell." When I transferred the intro. paragraph over I omitted that last line because I planned to include reference to that song lower down on the page. I think a link to The First Nowell should be retained somewhere on the dab page, it doesn't much matter to me whether it's in the intro, the dab links or the "See also" section. —  FoxCE   (talk • contribs) 21:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The thing is, Noel and "The First Nowell" just aren't synonymous, just related. I'm going to move it. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Champagne
I owe you an apology; I’ve suggested here that your proposal smacks of commercial interest, and (as such) you are acting as a PR agent. I can see from your edit history that isn’t the case, so I apologize to you for alleging that. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No apology needed, everyone makes mistakes, and I can see how you might have thought that. But thank you for the message. —  FoxCE   (talk • contribs) 22:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Cool!
Hi FoxCE,

I read Requests for comment/Muhammad images and saw that you expressed support the functional hatnote! yay! I also would not be cool with a hatnote that appeared ONLY on Muhammad. My preference would, like yours, be to add this feature to every page.

I just wanted to ask-- if necessary, could you support going article by article starting with Muhammad? I only ask because it might be harder to modify the user interface for all pages based just on our consensus. (or it might be easy).

I don't think anyone wants Muhammad to be "special". The only thing special about Muhammad is that Arbcom asked us to look into that one-- but there's no reason it would just apply to Muhammad. The hatnote is content-neutral and could be enabled on any pages where people want it.

Would it be okay to build consensus little by little, if necessary? Once people see the hatnote on Muhammad, you know they will naturally start enabling it on other pages in the nature order of editing pages.

I could spend a lot of time trying to write a policy in advance, but usually it's easier to let these things happen organically, and write the policy to only later to reflect existing consensus practices.

Either way-- I was really happy to see your comment-- I was really shocked by how controversial the feature was until I realized people really imagined us only using it just for one and only one page-- something that was so contrary to our neutrality, I didn't even think to refute it in the original write up.

I'm not certain how the procedural aspect will play out, but I think we agree on the ideal solution. :) --HectorMoffet (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Columbo
FoxCE, hi! Thanks for coming to help edit. You might be interested to note that there is an ANI here about editor B3430715 happening now.— Djathink imacowboy  17:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, thank you for letting me know. —  FoxCE   (talk • contribs) 17:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * New comment: FoxCE, you need to know a few things: Columbo is far from perfect, but lots of editors in the last few months have been trying to fix that. Rangoon and I went into mediation (which broke down but Rangoon and I are like partners). The point is, you are now supporting adding back several things we said we did not want in the article, citing WP:UNDUE and WP:TRIVIA. You need to consider those things. We were trying to sharpen and improve the article. A photo of the dog, really? We removed that long ago and it was agreed!— Djathink imacowboy  18:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

WOW
Looking at your userboxes, I sure wish we could get into a good, deep conversation. I love those boxes. And I am a cultural anthropologist (which no one ever believes, so let us leave it there). Anyway, one of my specialties is the reason humans have religion, their drives, their thoughts, and then of course the history of religion itself. Presently I'm working on a paper about the intimate link between two religions never linked before. Ah, I wish I could tell you about that .... — Djathink imacowboy  06:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's certainly among most interesting subjects to pursue and research. There's nothing more insightful than looking back to the infancy and evolution of our species' collective philosophy and cultural mores. —  FoxCE   (talk • contribs) 08:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)